If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Lost your password? Questions? Email admin @ theologyweb.com

TWeb had an OS update go bad and had to be restored to a previous state. We've lost two days worth of posts so you all get a do-over.

“Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case, nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen, for physical or chemical reasons, to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But, if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? It's like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way it splashes itself will give you a map of London. But if I can't trust my own thinking, of course I can't trust the arguments leading to Atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an Atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God.” C.S. Lewis

"We evolved to be good at thinking because it had survival value" seems just as good an explanation as "God created us to be good at thinking". Slightly better even, since God might have created us to be bad at thinking but to falsely believe we are good at it, whereas evolution would have weeded out such self-deception. While I used to enjoy Lewis' open-minded theology (his theology of hell, for example, in The Great Divorce, is quite different to mainstream protestant thought), his logical arguments were never his strong suit (e.g. also the 'Lord, Liar, Lunatic' Trilemma that completely ignores the fact that most critical scholars even in Lewis' own time didn't think the historical Jesus had ever claimed to be God).

His [CS Lewis'] logical arguments were never his strong suit (e.g. also the 'Lord, Liar, Lunatic' Trilemma that completely ignores the fact that most critical scholars even in Lewis' own time didn't think the historical Jesus had ever claimed to be God).

Yes. It ignores a fourth possibility that the Jesus story with its miracles and resurrection, is legend.

“He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

"We evolved to be good at thinking because it had survival value" seems just as good an explanation as "God created us to be good at thinking". Slightly better even, since God might have created us to be bad at thinking but to falsely believe we are good at it, whereas evolution would have weeded out such self-deception. While I used to enjoy Lewis' open-minded theology (his theology of hell, for example, in The Great Divorce, is quite different to mainstream protestant thought), his logical arguments were never his strong suit (e.g. also the 'Lord, Liar, Lunatic' Trilemma that completely ignores the fact that most critical scholars even in Lewis' own time didn't think the historical Jesus had ever claimed to be God).

Lewis' logical arguments are very week. I have gone through several of them and found none convincing. It does take time, however, to find the error. But I tend to think this is because he is such a good writer. I would not claim he has the intention to mislead, but his very good writing makes very weak arguments look a whole lot better. In the stuff seer just quoted we get a rather premature understanding of evolution, if you can even call it an understanding, it is rather a misunderstanding.

This is based on the meanings of the words rather than some rationalizations.

Very fair point to make. I am agnostic but that does not mean that I find all Gods equally likely to exist. I do not find it likely at all that the God seer points to exists, nor do I find it likely at all that Thor or Allah exist. That is not to say you can rule out the idea that there could be a God who is way beyond the grasp of our reasoning and logic and our senses. That is a question we simply cannot answer.

"We evolved to be good at thinking because it had survival value" seems just as good an explanation as "God created us to be good at thinking". Slightly better even, since God might have created us to be bad at thinking but to falsely believe we are good at it, whereas evolution would have weeded out such self-deception. While I used to enjoy Lewis' open-minded theology (his theology of hell, for example, in The Great Divorce, is quite different to mainstream protestant thought), his logical arguments were never his strong suit (e.g. also the 'Lord, Liar, Lunatic' Trilemma that completely ignores the fact that most critical scholars even in Lewis' own time didn't think the historical Jesus had ever claimed to be God).

First Lewis' minor at Cambridge was Philosophy and received the First in Greats in Philosophy and was philosophy tutor at University College, so his arguments are not nearly as bad as you suggest and was probably better educated in Philosophy than any of us. Second, he probably didn't give much weight to critical scholarship since he knew what the New Testament actually taught. Third, Lewis did believe in evolution (see his book the Problem of Pain) but that a rational universe and a rationally ordered or guided process best explained our rationality. Victor Reppert fleshes the argument out more in his "C. S. Lewis's Dangerous Idea: In Defense of the Argument from Reason."

"We can understand hell in its aspect of privation. All your life an unattainable ecstasy has hovered just beyond the grasp of your consciousness. The day is coming when you will wake to find, beyond all hope, that you have attained it, or else, that it was within your reach and you have lost it forever.”C.S. Lewis

Lewis' logical arguments are very week. I have gone through several of them and found none convincing. It does take time, however, to find the error. But I tend to think this is because he is such a good writer. I would not claim he has the intention to mislead, but his very good writing makes very weak arguments look a whole lot better. In the stuff seer just quoted we get a rather premature understanding of evolution, if you can even call it an understanding, it is rather a misunderstanding.

Really, have you ever read Miracles? His arguments are not weak.

"We can understand hell in its aspect of privation. All your life an unattainable ecstasy has hovered just beyond the grasp of your consciousness. The day is coming when you will wake to find, beyond all hope, that you have attained it, or else, that it was within your reach and you have lost it forever.”C.S. Lewis